BarryA, AKA Colorado attorney Barry K. Arrington, is responsible for some of the more offensive posts seen on UD in some time. The occasions for these posts have been the murders perpetrated by eighteen year old Finnish student Pekka Eric Auvinen, who shot and killed eight people in his school earlier this year, and more recently the murder of four persons in Colorado by the troubled adolescent Matthew Murray.

In the first instance BarryA used the Finnish shootings as an occasion to attribute the Columbine murders of 1999 to Darwinism. He noted that he was connected to Columbine in that he represented the families of six slain students as they pursued lawsuits against Harris' and Klebold's parents and other parties. Darwinism, he opined, was in some measure to blame for these incidents: "I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism. It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand 'survival of the fittest' and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider 'inferior.' Nothing could be more obvious."

The second instance was the more recent shootings of four persons in Arvada, Colorado on December 9th this year. Again, BarryA reported that he was obliquely connected to this event, stating, “I live in Arvada, Colorado, and for many years I attended the church associated with the YWAM shooting on Sunday.” He concluded his post by musing, “One wonders if Murray has been reading Dawkins or Dennett. By blaming the world’s ills on religious people do Dawkins and Dennett incite to hatred and make it more likely that tragedies of this sort can occur?” Barry claimed not to have an answer for his own question, but he did find it interesting.

I asked myself a more interesting question. “Who is Barry Arrington?” Some poking around the internet reveals some interesting data, and indeed some intriguing ironies, in light of his UD posts. Of course, there are limitations to research conducted in this way, but much to be learned just the same. I’ve included links to some of the materials I found. Perhaps you may correct any errors I have made.

BarryA notes in his UD biography that he is a CPA who became an attorney. In some respects he presents an impressive resume: In addition to his professional attainment as attorney and litigator in state and federal courts, he was co-founder of one charter school and has been on boards of directors of others. He also served one term as a Colorado State Representative beginning in 1997 and ran for the United States House of Representatives in 1998 (although he finished fourth in a field of four in the primary). He did indeed represent several families subsequent to the Columbine shootings, and has represented schools and charter schools on other matters.

He is also a contributor to Uncommon Descent.

There are some very pointed ironies, however. For example, BarryA recently advocated compromise on “relational matters” while rejecting compromise respect to “scientific truths.” However, his rejection of compromise appears to be rather more complete. His brief political career rose and fell on his advocacy of conservative, even extremist positions of the evangelical Christian right. For example, his successful campaign to become a state representative revolved, in part, around his promise to legislate against “partial birth abortions,” a promise he later attempted to keep. He was described in the Denver Westword News in this way: “There's no doubt that 35-year-old Barry Arrington is combative. Coming from what he describes as modest circumstances, he worked his way through law school at the University of Texas, acquired a black belt in the martial arts and developed a reputation for throwing his views right in your face. In the early Nineties he splashed his name on billboards advertising his services to women "injured" by abortion. He helped found the Rocky Mountain Family Council, a political arm of Focus on the Family. While crusading against pornography in the unsuccessful campaign for pro-censorship Amendment 16 in 1994, he denied being a censor but sounded like this century's version of Anthony Comstock: ‘A woman having oral sex with a dog and persons inserting small rodents into the rectum--don't tell me that's in the same category as Catcher in the Rye.’ Well-spoken and full of righteous indignation about the state of the world, he utters opinions with the confidence of someone who just knows the truth...Arrington's zeal strikes his critics as smug self-righteousness, but it's intoxicating to many other evangelical Christians.”

Mr. Compromise, there.

One of Barry’s actions as state representative was to help kill a proposed needle exchange program designed to prevent the communication of HIV, and among legislation he promulgated was a bill designed to prevent the exposure of minors to sexually explicit materials (see link to legislation above) - although among his most recent professional roles has been legal counsel to a charter school which recently experienced three scandals within a very brief period involving sexual contact by school personnel with minor students.

But it is BarryA's positions on gun laws, as well as some of the actions he pursued as he represented several Columbine families, that create the most potent ironies in light of his recent comments on UD. Perhaps these facts help us to understand the urgency with which he blames Darwin, Dennett and Dawkins for the shootings that have occurred in his, and other, communities.

- In 1998 Barry attempted to amend Colorado’s 1985 “Make My Day” legislation, which gave immunity to dwellers who kill or wound anyone who unlawfully enters their premises if the dweller reasonably believes the intruder will commit a crime and will use physical force, no matter how slight. Arrington advocated an amendment such that it didn't matter HOW the victim got on the defendant's premises (knowingly or unknowingly). Shoot first, don’t bother with questions at all. It also extended the law to stores, businesses and even to one’s vehicle. This would no doubt have encouraged compromise during road rage incidents. (The amendments did not pass.)

- Barry later ran for the U.S. House of Representatives (claiming James Dobson’s endorsement) on a rabidly pro-gun platform. A last minute bid for funds for his campaign issued by the Arrington for Congress Committee was entitled “Please Help GOA-PVF [Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund] Get a Pro-Gun Champion to Congress.” In the text we find, “If you and I want to stop the gun-grabbers in Washington, we’ve got to elect a hard-charging, no apologies pro-2nd Amendment candidates like Barry Arrington to Congress…That is why this race is such a tremendous opportunity to elect a strong, unflinching pro-gun candidate to Congress. And it would be such a wasted opportunity if one of Arrington's liberal, gun-grabbing opponents takes this solidly Republican seat.”

- In his recent posts, Barry attributed to Darwin, Dennett, and Dawkins responsibility for the Columbine, Finnish, and recent Colorado shootings. It does not occur to him to connect his gun advocacy to such events. Moreover, while representing anguished Columbine parents he did not attempt to sue Charles Darwin, Daniel Dennett, or Richard Dawkins. Nor did he rest upon attributing Columbine to Darwinism. Rather, he sued the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. He also blamed deaths upon the Jefferson County Sheriff’s department, stating on CNN, “As you can see from the video, the shooters walked through the halls of that school with impunity. You have to keep in mind, as they were walking through the halls of the school, there were police officers, sheriff's deputies just on the other side of the walls, not doing anything.” He pressed the accusation that one of the Columbine victims was shot by a police officer, an allegation later proved to be to be false. He even pressed a suit on behalf of these Columbine parents against Solvay Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of the antidepressant medication Luvox, which was found in Harris’ bloodstream at therapeutic levels. Other targets included the gun show where friends of Eric Harris purchased some of the weapons used at Columbine, as well as the a young woman who made that purchase (having trouble finding the links I had on these…I'll supply when I dig them up.)

So, apparently, Barry’s conviction that Darwinism, Dennett, and Dawkins are in some sense responsible for the Columbine murders and similar shootings has not always been as firm as it is today. During the years he represented these Columbine families he instead assigned responsibility to Harris' and Klebold’s parents, to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, to a police officer who responded to the Columbine shootings, to Solvay Pharmaceuticals, and to many others. These parties may indeed bear responsbility for those events to varying degrees. Somehow, however, Barry managed to omit mention of anyone other than his favorite ideological targets in his recent posts, the better to exploit these tragic events in an attempt to smear contemporary evolutionary biology and support the worthless pseudoscience that is ID.

I'm not sure I find that admirable.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

One of Barry’s actions as state representative was to help kill a proposed needle exchange program designed to prevent the communication of HIV

Then he bears partial personal responsibility for every needless death due to dirty needles. Still, as no doubt the drug addicts would not have voted for him or gone to his church in Barry's mind that's A-OK and I'm sure he goes to bed at night safe in the knowledge he's done gods work by hastening the death of his states "undesirables".

Perhaps Barry will find out that "teh drugz" can strike a member of anybody's family and have cause to regret his actions at a later date.

10/10 for the writeup Bill. Great background info on the UD cast.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Interesting stuff, thanks for doing the research. At times I like BarryA, because he seems to have enough brain cells to rub together. But then he uses shooting tragedies to come out with his crap about it being the atheists' fault (but, errm, not directly, oh no).

However...

Quote

...among legislation he promulgated was a bill designed to present the exposure of minors to sexually explicit materials...

I guess your only reaction to that slip can be "Oh, shoot!".

Bob

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

This is not surprising. Anyone who is invested in ID probably has similar "traits". To be an IDist means you have to be kinda loopy (or just plain stupid) in the first place. Their appeal is to ignorance so Barry A fits in nicely.

Classic gun nut thinking. Kids go berserk and shoot up a school. This has nothing to do with the guns he's worked to keep plentiful and easily available, of course, but rather it's all the fault of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins. Fucking idiot, no wonder he gravitates to ID.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

BarryA also has a sycophantic book review of Dembski and Wells' Design of Life on the Amazon book review page. So far there are four comments reaming his review, but no return appearance from the barrister himself. Maybe he can be lured out of the friendly confines of UD to engage in a conversation with the banned.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

Denver Republican Party Chairman Steve Curtis denounced [the needle exchange] measure as "un-Republican," a sentiment which was echoed by Republican State Representatives Mark Paschall and Barry Arrington at a press conference before the vote

Yeah, helping stem the tide of AIDs is VERY un-Republican. They'd rather watch them die slow deaths (god's will and all, though it could be a space alien wink wink).

Barry is a piece of work. Not surprised at all that IDC attracts losers like him.

I just got an email from Barry, which I wont reproduce without his permission. I encouraged him to reply either here or at UD.

If you do reproduce it, even if you make an error in copying and pasting we can rest assured that only micro evolution of the message will happen. It's because of the "fall" you see. No macro evolution of the message will occur, because of universal probability bound, which quoting Kariosfocus is in the order of 500 information bits ^300 CSI bits which as all us engineers and dentists can understand, is well outside of the permutations available in this universe. Now, multiverse smultiverse...

And so on.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Of course, I am happy to be corrected if there are factual inaccuracies in the above, or if the websites linked are themselves inaccurate or unfair. Most of the above speaks for itself; enter "Barry K. Arrington" into Google and you, too can construct a similar (or competing) narrative (with the same limitations).

What won't change, however, is the juxtaposition between BarryA's previous positions opposing any and all gun regulation, a hyperconservative view of gun ownership and availability that very possibly DID play a role in the two tragic shootings in Colorado to which he refers, and his exploitation of Columbine and similar tragedies to ascribe to Dennett, Dawkins, and other a measure of responsibility for events such as these. Nor will the irony of this juxtaposition diminish.

The one thing to which we should all strive, and that we owe to the victims and survivors of such tragic events, is an understanding of those events that is as complete and nuanced as we are capable of mustering. Recruiting these deaths in the service of scoring politically motivated, polarizing, black and white rhetorical points obscures and distracts from attaining that understanding.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

BarryA was decent to me (usually) in my role as getawitness. Of course, as befits his profession, he was also an arrogant windbag plenty of times. He's fairly smart among the UD pack. But his embrace of groupthink, and its extension into offensive cultural waters in the posts mentioned above, is really disturbing.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

Conclusion: We can never be as certain that common descent is a fact as we are that hammers drop to the ground is a fact. Therefore, it is fatuous to say the theory of evolution accounts for the “fact” of common descent in the same way the theory of gravity accounts for the “fact” of dropping hammers.

Conclusion: We can never be as certain that common descent is a fact as we are that hammers drop to the ground is a fact. Therefore, it is fatuous to say the theory of evolution accounts for the “fact” of common descent in the same way the theory of gravity accounts for the “fact” of dropping hammers.

- BarryA: So much for "The Design Inference" and "inference to the best explanation," eh?

- I am also noticing your flexible standards for attaining and acting upon conclusions through inference. For example, when you alleged that Denver police officer Daniel O'Shea shot and killed 15 year old Daniel Rohrbough at Columbine, you did so on the basis of extremely dubious inferences that later proved to be unfounded and mistaken, in the face of O'Shea's denials and in the absence of eyewitness accounts of Rohrbough's death. This, however, did not stop you from unfairly inflicting nearly two years of misery upon O'Shea.

- Similarly, you recently asserted that it is a fair question whether the works of Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins did not "incite to hatred" of Christians and, in some measure, play a role in Matthew Murray's recent murder of four people. Your process there didn't really even merit the label "inference," because you made this leap with exactly zero evidence that Murray had even heard of Dennett or Dawkins - and with direct knowledge of the claustrophobic intellectual microclimate within which Murray was actually nurtured. Here you defended your shoddy reasoning:

Quote

Surprisingly, several commenters have suggested that unless I can prove a direct causal relationship I should be quiet. Stuart Harris as much as says that unless I can show that Murray read an atheist book last Saturday and started killing people on Sunday then I should “shut the hell up.” Mr. Harris, let me clue you in...

So. When it is convenient, watertight eyewitness observations are not required.

- As a trial attorney you cannot be unaware of the fact that eyewitness testimony has been demonstrated again and again to be, in fact, among the least reliable forms of evidence that can be offered at trial. Far MORE reliable in criminal matters than eyewitness accounts are careful inferences from physical evidence. Of the sort that, on a vastly larger, extended, and more consilient scale, unequivocally support common descent.

All this compels inferences regarding the quality of BarryA's reasoning.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

- Similarly, you recently asserted that it is a fair question whether the works of Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins did not "incite to hatred" of Christians and, in some measure, play a role in Matthew Murray's recent murder of four people. Your process there didn't really even merit the label "inference," because you made this leap with absolutely no evidence that Murray had even heard of Dennett or Dawkins - and with direct knowledge of the claustrophobic intellectual microclimate within which Murray was actually nurtured.

Looking over this thread, it seems as if one of Barry's antagonists left him a parting shot.

Quote

It looks like we now have the answer to the interesting question. The results of the search warrant on Matthew Murray’s residence have been released. No Dawkins. No Dennett. No Hitchens. There was a prescription for alprazolam, a drug used to treat severe anxiety disorders, lots of gun and bomb making materials, and religious media including a Bible and a Book of Mormon.

More interesting questions?

I will say this about Barry. He is probably the best writer over there at UD. He is more intelligent than Dave, easier to understand than Denyse, and exhibits a parsimony in expression generally unknown to Dembski. He also seems less eager to wield the heavy hand of moderation. So, I can see why Bob O'H is kinda sweet on him.

But, make no mistake, he is, as others have suggested, a cultural warrior. Whenever he drops a real clunker, like trying to imply that atheists are to blame for Matthew Murray, in can only be made sense of through the understanding that Barry sees himself as a actor in the culture war. And that is what, ultimately, separates him from other intelligent, religious, conservative lawyers, like (for example) former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, John E Jones III.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

I will say this about Barry. He is probably the best writer over there at UD. He is more intelligent than Dave, easier to understand than Denyse, and exhibits a parsimony in expression generally unknown to Dembski. He also seems less eager to wield the heavy hand of moderation. So, I can see why Bob O'H is kinda sweet on him.

But, make no mistake, he is, as others have suggested, a cultural warrior. Whenever he drops a real clunker, like trying to imply that atheists are to blame for Matthew Murray, in can only be made sense of through the understanding that Barry sees himself as a actor in the culture war. And that is what, ultimately, separates him from other intelligent, religious, conservative lawyers, like (for example) former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, John E Jones III.

I see the qualities to which you refer. In a sense, his sometime clarity and apparent civility make his more egregious lapses less excusable.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I had thought of contacting the editors of the Rocky Mountain News with an "angle" on an op-ed piece, but Reciprocating Bill has the goods on Barry already.

Some ideas:

The point in going to the mainstream media is to persuade the "Conservative Republican = Good Guy Like Us" crowd that Barry is actually not a good guy like them. You have to steer clear of suggesting that it is anything but fine to be a conservative Republican. Any reference to Barry's advocacy for gun owners has to be handled very carefully.

Nobody likes a liar. Play up the fact that the "intelligent design" brand of creationism originated with a (botched) global search-and-replace revision of a creation science textbook, and that it was subsequently dandified by a fast-talking lawyer. Point out that ID creationists have developed elaborate ways of denying that they are creationists. That is part of the subterfuge. I would suggest that it's OK for religious people to seek support for their beliefs in science, provided they are honest.

Candidate Arrington is also a lawyer, and is not the sweetest smelling of them, when you take a good sniff.

In the school-board debacles regarding science standards, no board member has been as devoted to creationism as Arrington. The claim of a slick lawyer-fox that he won't dine if the voters let him into the hen house seems a bit thin. Dembski recently posted on Arrington's blog, "Perhaps when Dover II rolls around...." Would the candidate promise to recuse himself from all board activities related to biology education?

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Barry Arrington is likely to include the Discover Channel hostage-taker in his future arguments. The fellow has a manifesto citing Darwin and Malthus for his radical approach to advocating zero-to-negative human population growth.

Barry Arrington is likely to include the Discover Channel hostage-taker in his future arguments. The fellow has a manifesto citing Darwin and Malthus for his radical approach to advocating zero-to-negative human population growth.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Good news for Michel[l]e Bachmann! This autumn, her PAC: "Many Individual Conservatives Helping Elect [Loony] Leaders Everywhere (MICHELEPAC)" changed treasurer. On the 16th August, they had filed some bookwork that had Barry A. listed as treasurer. A few weeks later, on the 9th of September they filed more bookwork, with Nancy Watkins listed as treasurer.

That's OK. She's got less than 11 months left, anyway - she's not running in the next elective cycle. I guess the laugh-fest in St. Cloud left an impression. ;) I guarantee you, Minnesota will not miss her.

Please don't judge lawyers by their clients. Some of the most moral and upstanding attorneys have the worst clients.

Even assuming that the version of events in the story is totally accurate, BA is not responsible for his clients' wrongdoing. Stepping up to defend a reprehensible client is a morally good act, even if the client is guilty, because the system absolutely depends on everyone having effective counsel.

Please don't judge lawyers by their clients. Some of the most moral and upstanding attorneys have the worst clients.

Even assuming that the version of events in the story is totally accurate, BA is not responsible for his clients' wrongdoing. Stepping up to defend a reprehensible client is a morally good act, even if the client is guilty, because the system absolutely depends on everyone having effective counsel.

We're not judging Barry by his clients. Rather, we're judging Barry by Barry. He's got a wee bit of a track record of being an arrogant, insensitive fuckwad, and this latest bit of Barryana is just consistent with that track record.

How? All I see in that article is that he said the claimant's claims were "baseless" and refused to go into detail. That's pretty much what anyone would do when representing an organization accused of wrongdoing. ("Baseless" could mean lots of things--what the school did wasn't wrong, or it didn't do what she's claiming, or she's not the right person to claim it, etc.)

I googled the facts and found some other articles in which he claims that three "outside" attorneys agree that the claims are baseless. That's an odd thing for an attorney to say, but it's not arrogant or insensitive.

It would be incredibly inappropriate for an attorney for the school to agree with the claimant's assertions. It could set the school up for a lawsuit (whether or not one is appropriate) and/or inflame the dispute. The standard thing to do is to say some variation of what he said and refuse to go into detail in public. That's not just the normal thing to do, it's the moral and right thing for counsel to do in the vast majority of cases.